Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: ns161 on December 23, 2007, 01:29:19 pm
-
I'm starting to write a story set in the Freespace universe, post Capella. One thing I noticed was that some of the timelines in some campaigns seem woefully skewed to me.
I have serious doubts that the GTVA could have recovered so fully as to have entirely new ship-classes, large amounts of advanced destroyers, etc. within 20-25 years of Capella. So what kind of timescale do you all think was appropriate?
I'm thinking of a fully recovered GTVA that has new ship classes, including a specific "Carrier" class that is also capable of doubling as a heavy destroyer (I guess "Battle Carrier" or "Battle Cruiser" might be a more appropriate name). Something in the superdestroyer class, better than an orion/hecate but not near the level of a Sath or Colossus
I was thinking 40 years post-Capella at least for that kind of recovery and advancement. Do you all think tha twould be appropriate?
-
I'm starting to write a story set in the Freespace universe, post Capella. One thing I noticed was that some of the timelines in some campaigns seem woefully skewed to me.
I have serious doubts that the GTVA could have recovered so fully as to have entirely new ship-classes, large amounts of advanced destroyers, etc. within 20-25 years of Capella. So what kind of timescale do you all think was appropriate?
I'm thinking of a fully recovered GTVA that has new ship classes, including a specific "Carrier" class that is also capable of doubling as a heavy destroyer (I guess "Battle Carrier" or "Battle Cruiser" might be a more appropriate name). Something in the superdestroyer class, better than an orion/hecate but not near the level of a Sath or Colossus
I was thinking 40 years post-Capella at least for that kind of recovery and advancement. Do you all think tha twould be appropriate?
No I don't. While Capella was a major loss, it was nowhere near as large a loss as our loss of contact with the Sol. Anyways--Sol had the majority of our mining and manufacturing operations, the social, economic, and political center of Terran culture, and a large portion of our military. With Capella and preceding incidents (NTF Rebellion and attacks on the Shivans), we probably lost more of our ships then we did losing contact with Sol. That being said, the vast majority of our infrastructure was still present in other systems. Our primary drive would be to replace as many of the lost ships as we possibly could--to preserve the GTVA's strength and Terran/Vasudan balance. Once we have enough ships, we'd have the firepower to put down major threats (probably within 2 years we build enough cruisers and had enough support from the Vasudans to do this).
I don't agree with the new ship classes. While we probably have 2-3 more classes (a formal Super Destroyer or Carrier, a Gunship, and probably a few more AWACS vessels), it won't be replacing all the current classes we have (Cruiser, Corvette, Destroyer, *Juggernaut*).
What I think the GTVA's priorities are...
1) Reinforce military
2) Deal with refugees
3) Rebuild lost assets
4) Develop new technology and elaborate on existing technology
-
20-25 years is a long time actually... the T-W war lasted for 14 years and a lot of advancements and changed were made, despite the drain the war was having.
The GTVA has lost a lot of warship, but except for that they are in pretty good shape. Capella was a newer colony so it's not as big of a loss as many think, and all the other planets and systems are in good shape - with the possible excpetion of the 3 NTF held systems.
Given that their industrial base is in tact (in fact, bolstered by the former NTF shipyards) and that they have a lot of new tech knowledge (captured shivan fighters, scans of shivan ships, maby even parts of the Sath - I can bet they took a few to study), a strong drive to build new and better ship seems like a logical step, especialyl considering they need to fill the ranks.
That said, the exact extent of the GTVA losses is left to speculation, as the phrase "we lost most of our fleet" can also refer to only the fleet in Capella, not the overall GTVA fleet.
20-25-30 years is a long enough period for many, many changes. :D
-
The GTVA has a number of issues facing them at that point in time.
Reduced naval strength, both literally (losses in Capella) and figuratively (obviously no longer believe themselves capable of handling a Shivan incursion).
Heavily industrialized/populated systems formerly controlled by the NTF: possibly in need of reconstruction (though the speed with which the NTF collapsed makes this somewhat unlikely) and with shaky loyalty.
Loss of Capella (physical resources)
Capellan and other refugees.
Of these, only one cuts to the core, threatening the survival of the GTVA and the Terran and Vasudan species. The losses they took in Capella can be rebuilt, so can factories. People can be resettled. Loyalties can be changed. Even new systems can be settled to replace Capella.
But the GTVA does not have the ability to confront the Sathanas fleet on anything within yelling distance of equal terms using the weapons and ships they have available. To build up to the force levels required just to face a significant fraction of the Sathanas fleet would take decades. It isn't just building the ships and training the crews, but building the infrastructure to support them, the shipyards and the factories and the academies. The GTVA's economy probably can't support the kind of effort needed to reach even that minimal capablity to deal with the juggernaut fleet, at least without restructuring. This would be the work of a half-century, easily.
And when numbers will not serve, something else must. Tactics, technology, quality. The GTVA can be expected to rush ships and weapons designed to deal with juggernauts out the door within seven years of Capella, probably even within five. There will be great emphasis on doing more with less. We must remember that the GTVA fleet we saw in FS2 was essentially the product of a peacetime military. The ships and fighters were designed before the NTF Rebellion. We are likely to see a great number of stripped-down designs surface, ships meant to do the same jobs just as well as the old ones, but do them at lesser cost using fewer people. The GTVA is likely to totally rethink their tactical and strategic doctrine.
-
Thanks for the input guys. I wasn't aware that Capella was a new colony, I overestimated its importance from the storyline. I thought it was a central hub. It does make a big difference that it wasn't. I figure 20 years then maybe. For the record, my interpretation of the "Fleet" comment is this:
The "Fleet" referred to consists of the 3rd Fleet Capella and some re-enforcement ships (perhaps rising up to the level of an entire second fleet). Given the realities of the size of the GTVA I simply cannot believe that they would send their entire space-faring fleet to deal with the situation. It hadn't reached THAT level of desperation yet. Besides, they would have wanted to continue the only alternative they had of destroying nodes, which couldn't be accomplished if the entire fleet was lost at Capella.
Besides, if they lose the entire fleet it makes my story much tougher to set up. So I'm going with that.
-
I don't think they could have sent their whole fleet even if they wanted. The Sathanas fleet push happened pretty fast and GTVA space is pretty big. It takes time for capships to get from one end to another..days even.
And there had to be ships stationed at recently captures NTF systems, not to mention other important systems.
Capella was a newer colony, since it's not there in FS1 time and it's a bit far from Earth. Apparently, it was well developed for a new colony.
That said, it's difficult to judge how much time the GTVA would need to get it's strength up again. that depends what you consider under that terms.
Even one system holds enough resources to make a dozen huge fleet,s so resources wouldn't be a problem. Industry base can grow rather fast, even after great destruction - just look at how fast Germany and Japan recovered after WW2. GTVA was spared this time from any great destruction (infrastructure wise), so tehy shouldn't have too much trouble imporving and expanding what they have.
-
I'm curious as to why the Sheevee's blasted Vasuda Prime into oblivion but let every other planet untouched :confused:
All the GTVA needs to do is equip Alpha 1 with a Colossus or other giant ship and everything hostile will be slaughtered.
Actually, yes, Germany and Japan recovered fast after WW2, but they also got support by the U.S.A. in forms of funds n' stuff. I don't think that's gonna happen this time.
-
I think they'll always be able to innovate stuff and pump out new ships. 20 systems or more of what they have in the gtva, with each system being ****ing huge. There's billions of people spread out among all of them. I'm sure the building ships and innovating idea's isn't a problem. Just that the thing that really sets back the gtva is major disasters. 1st and second shivan encounters were major conflicts and in turn really screws their galactic economy. In other words as long as the economy is still kicking, expect tons of ships possibly even new ones. Keep in mind in fs2 they were in the middle of phasing out fs1 era ships, so in fs2 it wasn't going around seeing only new ships. No a whole bunch of the time it was a good mixture of the two; you saw just as many old ships as you did new ones.
-
I plan on having a few FS1 era ships still in existence myself. I know they SAID in FS2 they were going to phase out the Orions. But COME ON, you don't phase out such a successful ship. It is obviously upgradeable (FS1 to FS2) so there may be substantial retrofits, but I think of the Orion as the B-52 of the Freespace universe. The B-52 is expected to see service until it is about 75 years old. That's ludicrous, but it shows that you simple don't phase out something that successful.
I don't intend on having the Orion as the mainstay destroyer anymore (it will be replaced with something I haven't named yet) but I will still have them there pulling their weight.
-
Now you're just not thinking. Orions in fs2 were being replaced by the cheaper hecate class; orions are no longer being made. To upgrade all of them costs a lot of money, because orions are old technology. It's more expensive to do extensive upgrades than to just build a new ship. The costs for upgrading an orion over the long term just isn't worth it when you can keep having superior ship designs which would most likely have an easier time upgrading than an orion should you even need to upgrade on a newer ship. Part of building new classes of ships is better design, functionality, and implementation. Part of that superior functionality is easier upgrading. I mean think about it. Such as replacing an orion's blob turrets with subachs or kaysers would be like trying to pop a quad core processor into a 486 motherboard. It just gets really hard to upgrade old technology over the long term too, You'd get to the point where popping in one new thing in an old ship would require replacing or adding in a ton of new things. Such as giving a 486 motherboard a quad core processor, just can't be done, you'd have to get a new motherboard, different kind of memory, and hope that all of this still fits inside of the old clunky 486 motherboard case where it all came out of. Now don't forget the costs of taylor making stuff.
Lets say that new motherboard won't fit in that old chassis where it just absolutely needs to go. Extra money gets spent on figuring out how to taylor that board to fit in a case it wont fit in because it must go in there.
Anyway, while the hecate may currently be underpowered compared to an orion, it is cheaper to make and is a current design that utilizes current technology. This makes the hecate the better deal in the end because upgrading it with new technology would be a lot cheaper than upgrading an orion. And you know they're going to upgrade the hecate and retrofit it to be more offensive in the near future.
On the other hand will orions still be in use as long as they're still around (like not all of them being destroyed), then yes i can see orions still in service then if they haven't been mothballed.
-
That all depends on how technology changes post-Capella. Sure then the U.S. Military had to upgrade all the computers on the old B-52's it cost a lot of money but they haven't had to do that again. That's why those planes are still in service so many years later.
So let's assume that to retrofit the Orions between FS1 and FS2 took the kind of massive upgrading you're talking about (switching out computers etc.). I would think that was mostly a result of the new technological advances resulting from the merger of Terran and Vasudan technology (the Orions were originally solely Terran in origin).
BUT if the computing technology has not changed that much, it might not be like replacing the motherboard, it might be like adding more RAM to an existing motherboard. The underlying hardware might not have changed that much.
Here's the way I look at it:
Originally the systems on the Orions were Galactic Terran
Then they were updated to become Galactic Terran-Vasudan
That's a dynamic shift in technology, its basically like going from a Commodore 64 to a modern PC, its a geometric shift in technology, all aspects changed.
BUT I would think that the Orions (and other FS1 ships that might retain some usefulness) could be upgraded sequentially.
As I said, I'm not talking about having Orions as flagships or anything, but I still think that, even 20-25 years post FS2 they could form a strong secondary line with some of the newer ships I'm envisioning.
I have an idea for a replacement mainline destroyer (a SOLE destroyer without any kind of carrier ability), the Hecate's I see as going into their proper role of C&C ships (Command and Control) not necessarily "Destroyers" in a pure sense.
I also have a concept for a ship designated the Calliope BattleCarrier (might just call it a carrier) that fills in the gap between destroyers and superdestroyers/juggernauts.
I don't see Orions as being able to go to toe to toe or any more having been built. But I don't see the GTVA scrapping the ones that survived the second Great War. It just doesn't make sense to retire an entire ship class. If they are THAT obsolete you aren't going to use them for parts, so you might as well use them until they simply can't be maintained anymore.
We haven't built a B-52 since the mid-70's, but they still work just fine. We're still using some of the ORIGINAL B-52's from the Korean War.
-
Chain of thought:
Orions are successful ---> Retire them!! :D
Huh?
-
Chain of thought:
Orions are successful ---> Retire them!! :D
Huh?
Orions are successful but expensive. Their cost effectiveness is less compared to newer designs => replace them with newer designs.
-
And a Hecate isn't expensive?
Just where do the people come up with this "Orion is horrendously expensive" stuff? ALL destroyers are expensive and after the shivan BBQ, i don't think the GTVA will be in a hurry to scrap ship. In fact, I bet they'll be brining out ships out of the mothballs. Let's face it, they need every ship they can get their hands on - they won't be scraping their most powerfull anti-captial platform.
That said, I doubt they will start Orion production again. A new class to take over is probably in the works, but even when it comes out I still believs the remaining Orions will be in service, at least as backups.
-
And a Hecate isn't expensive?
Just where do the people come up with this "Orion is horrendously expensive" stuff? ALL destroyers are expensive and after the shivan BBQ, i don't think the GTVA will be in a hurry to scrap ship. In fact, I bet they'll be brining out ships out of the mothballs. Let's face it, they need every ship they can get their hands on - they won't be scraping their most powerfull anti-captial platform.
That said, I doubt they will start Orion production again. A new class to take over is probably in the works, but even when it comes out I still believs the remaining Orions will be in service, at least as backups.
You missed the point. The older a machine in service, the more costly for it to be maintained (easier and easier to breakdown). This is true for civilian as well as military equipment. Things don't last forever.
In addition, the military has a tendency to develop equipment that are easier to maintain than the previous iteration, either by lesser parts or by reduced maintenance hours, unless it is a radically different technology. Of course this is not universally true, but it is an ideal that most military commanders would want.
-
You missed the point. The older a machine in service, the more costly for it to be maintained (easier and easier to breakdown). This is true for civilian as well as military equipment. Things don't last forever.
In addition, the military has a tendency to develop equipment that are easier to maintain than the previous iteration, either by lesser parts or by reduced maintenance hours, unless it is a radically different technology. Of course this is not universally true, but it is an ideal that most military commanders would want.
Things don't last forever, but they can last a VERY long time and can be upgraded easily if designed properly.
Just look at that new US-sub that is designed to be modular and can be upgraded with whole new SECTION easily. It reminded me of how how new memory modules are installed in your computer.
-
Remember that the Orion is very modular and can easily be modified. All Orions were easily outfitted with beam weaponry without the reactor failures that the Typhon suffered from.
-
Yea, just cause the Hecate is new doesn't mean it cost less to maintain, that Orion was a very easy to fix and refit destroyer, we don't know about the Hecate.
Who knows, the Hecate might be the Destroyer equivalent of Vista. :p
-
Lol Hades Hecate equivalent of Vista! LOL !
I also believe that putting the Orion to retirement is just ridiculous. The Orion IS the PRIDE of the terrans it is the most powerfull anti-cap platform out there. It has a decent fighter capacity . sure its AAAF abilaties suck big time but that can be fixed. also a destroyer is not meant to go into a battle without fighter/bommber escort or some cruisers for escort at least.
That beeing said the Hecate has a worse kill/losses ration the the Orion. Hell even the Hattie wich saw less action against the NTF has a better kill/loss ratio. I think.
Also remember the phrase about the Orion's simple ppresence into a sistem make everyone feel safer ? Dont know wjere i saw that. Also the fact that an Orion is beeing deployed into a sistem usualy means a war is coming . This leads me to think that the Orion is still used as the main deterrant for anyone who thinks about starting trouble.
The Hecate is good but not that good. Give me aHecate after you upgrade them beam cannons a bit at least 3 more BG and il be happy.
Also I believe that the GTVA will go for a new destroyer class to replace the shoes left behind by the Orion perhaps something that is also more powerfull.
As for the timeline i believe the GTVA has the necesary infrasctructure to replace all the losses within 5 years time max. And at the end of the 5 year term i believe they will also pop out at least 2 new ship classes.
One of them would be the friggate class such as the Iceni i mean that ship is too good not to be built. Sure it will undergo some design changes to alow it to have a bit more aaaf firepower but keep those 3 BG.
Another one would be a new destroyer class something with at least the same load out in terms of beam cannons as the Orion or something a bit more powerfull perhaps the next gen of beam cannons.
After about 2 more years max I thin the GTVA will start manufacturing carrier classes and new cruiser classes ! This would mean at least 5 new ship classes entering testing periods and full blown production after another 2 years. The rate at which these ships will be built still remains to be decided.
8 years after capella some new fighters/bommber designs should be entering production .
10 years MAX. a knossos portal should be completed in order to link DS-Sol sistems.
This beeing said it should take the GTVA about 10 years give or take a year to become stronger and implement new ship designs into the fleet. Sure they might not be that many of them but they will be available.
If anyone thinks this is too short of a timeline i believe that the GTVA will complete theyr full restructuring resizement and redeployement of ships this incluedes both new techs and cap ships in a max time span of 20 years. By this time the GTVA should be booted in economy and strenght by both the Sol forces and the new trading partner as well as cmpletion of at least one more knossos.
-
Anyway, the normal topic was dodged. The normal topic was talking about orions still being manufactured well after fs2. It's quite obvious that during fs2 there's already **** loads of orions and that with the hecate already being next in line that orions have stopped on the assembly line in favor of being replaced with hecates.
Sure orions will still be in use, they're handy, but no more are being made. Very good discussion about the upgrading of them though :yes:
-
well like was posted above why get rid of something that is actualy worth its money and is actualy good at what it claims to be a DESTROYER .
And the Orion is just such a ship it is a destroyer of capships. Hell tha Orion given the right circumstances could take out even a Ravana with ease .
The fact remains that while Orions in theyr current form will not be build anymore i believe that some sort of upgraded Orion will come out of the shypyards perhaps a second generation of Orions incorporating the latest tech from the GTVA R&D departements with emphasis on the anti-cap shi abilaties. Most definetly in the spirit of FS its aaaf defences wond be that great but i bet they will be a hell of a lot more powerfull then what the current Orion has.
Also I believe that a 20 to 25 years time span for rebuilding replacing etc of the GTVA ships is a bit too long since the GTVA doesnt have to do any major reconstructing this time . Also whyle a I do agree that the GTVA did lose a lot of ships to both the NTF and the Shivans the losses are not that critical as to force the GTVA into chaos.
I mean a army can loose up to 60% of its forces and still be efective in what it has to do and that is ..police action for the moment for the GTVA ships.
I believe that the GTVA lost about 35 to 50% of its warships these are indee very serious losses but when considering that the GTVA fleet total fleet i mean was well huge compared to that of the FS1 era the losse arent that catastrophic.
All these ships can be replaced if all shipyards and production facilaties get into full wartime production in under 2 or 3 years time. Max 5 when considering they have to be crewed and stuff. The academies are still tehre the training schools are still there so at least one batch of fresh officesrs and pilots should be exiting every academay training institution every year.
Even with just 12 academies and training facilaties in place each handeling about 3000 men per year that still puts the GTVA at a new officer/pilots per year of about a total 72.000 men each year. That is asuming they have just 12 of them and asuming they actualy dont have any reserve pilots officers etc. Whcih i find it hard to believe. I believe that the biggest problem facing the GTVA is not the lack of trained officers but the lack of ships to put them on. However after capella the GTVA industry and R&D facilaties will most definetly go into full swing thus making the replacement of actual ships and materials pretty simple. The refugeez from capella can easely be relocated to the newer sistyem where labour is short and are underpopulated.
When you think about it the GTVA got off this time with the equivalent of a slap on the face from the shivans compared to FS1 !
-
All of the gtva weren't at the capella sealing. Losing 60 to 35% of the gtva forces that were stationed at capella and nearby makes more sense. The gtva is not tiny, it's huge. But, making a second generation re-hash newer version of the orion would be cool and can likely happen. About the only real setback is what will happen to the economy after capella. That'll probably put ship building and other stuff into a temporary slump (i mean temporary as any amount of time).
-
Actualy to jump start the economy a major rebuilding and refittingreequipping plan would do the trick.
Sure it may not be a good solution in the long run but in the short term it will be the best solution for all of this. While the GTVA is building its ships they can also use the temporary influx in the economy to bring up the economy on the long run! This way by the times the short boom from the ship building is over the economical recession will be not so much a severe one! Sure it may affect some sistems more then other but on the other hand it wont be that bad they should be able to recover from an economical recession of about 2 to 3 years very fast and with no lasting ill efects.
That beeing said I would also like to point out that the loss of one sistem while a major loss indeed is not such a big deal when you think about the NTF controled sistems that were isolated from the GTVA.
I mean that took out a huge portion of the GTVA industry and economy much more then Capella was worth.
And yet the GTVA managed to survive all of that.
So i believe ppl overestimate the importance of cappella both in terms of economy and milatary power.
An important colony ? sure of course .
A major critycal part of the GTVA ? that is a big NO .
-
A major critycal part of the GTVA ? that is a big NO .
The GTVA did send a lot of its fleet there to stop the Shivans, so it would be a major part of the GTVA, but not a critical component of it.
-
Here's a question I have, are the Orions we see in FS2, FS1 era ships that have been retrofitted? Or are they "Orion MK2's" new Orions built since the great war?
-
Negative the Orions we see in FS2 are retrofitted Orions . At this moment there is no official Orion mk 2 available.
Please get back to us on our next release for further information about your requested items. Oh wait there not a next release so no official Orion MK II will be available . However there is an Orion MK II available via black market retailers aka TMan if im not mistaken . An it has some interesting new features added to it. Dont know exactly where it is so you have to ask TMAN since he is the unoficial pimp my battleship/Orion mk II tarider on the streets. :P
See TMAN a bit of advertising works wonders for the business.
-
Given that the Hecate class is superior to the Orion in terms of being a Destroyer (In FS terms), it'll eventually replace every Orion. The reason why the Hecate is armed lightly in anti-capital ship warfare is because bombers are definitely more effective to use against Destroyers. The Hecate is excellent for carrying task forces and can defend itself better than the Orion can against enemy bombers.
-
Remember that the Orion is very modular and can easily be modified. All Orions were easily outfitted with beam weaponry without the reactor failures that the Typhon suffered from.
First of all, let me state this: I am not saying that they should scrap all remaining Orions, but they should be replaced as soon as possible with newer designs, be it a Hecate or otherwise.
We don't know how the upgrading process went and how much it cost, how much engineering effort was needed to prevent those failures. For all we know they use magical duct tape and pixie dust to hold everything together and they are now running short of it. And I don't remember any part of the Tech Room description talking about modularity in the Orion design.
As far as I can tell, beam technology is a different paradigm. With most military (and civilian) technology, such a shift usually require a major shift in design in order to take FULL advantage of it. You don't put a modern jet engine (just take a F100 PW 200) onto a Spitfire previously fitted with a piston engine and expect it to match an F16 fully designed to take advantage of such an engine.
You can replace the entire section of the sub but you still are required to conform to a set of requirements to ensure that new section fits with the existing ones. Wiring needs to be the same. Voltage and current needs to be the same unless you want to change in for the entire submarine. Even power requirements need to adhere to a limit, or else (again) you need to upgrade the powerplant in another section of the submarine that you have no intentions to upgrade currently. The diameter and shape of the hull sections must also match, and this is possibly singularly the most restrictive of all. All these are restrictions on how much upgrades that can be affected on the current system.
Many nations upgraded their A4s and F5s with newer avionics and engines but still they can never match a newer fighter (which is why those upgraded fighters still get phased out).
My personal opinion that the Orion is so powerful in FS2 and that the Hecate suck balls is probably a design decision by :v:, rather than something that makes (realistic) sense.
-
Put it this way.
Orions > Hecates
Orions > Demons
Orions > Ravanas
Orions > Hatshepsuts
Orions > Typhons
Orions = Retired.
:wtf:
-
For more info on that modular sub, looky here:
http://www.powmadeak47.com/powmia/milsubvirginia.html
I think that's it anyway. Things can be very modular when properly designed.
-
I'm thinking of a fully recovered GTVA that has new ship classes, including a specific "Carrier" class that is also capable of doubling as a heavy destroyer (I guess "Battle Carrier" or "Battle Cruiser" might be a more appropriate name). Something in the superdestroyer class, better than an orion/hecate but not near the level of a Sath or Colossus
(http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/6010/second9so.jpg)
We did that about 8 years ago, still doing it actually.
The Golgotha always was, and always will be the penultimate logical progression (through both process of induction and deduction) of picking up where the flagships and the Colossus left off, if you paid any attention to what was written by the developers, on sites that have long since ceased being hosted.
Not that I'm saying what we're doing with BWO is anywhere near what would have happened in FS3, far from it, but ship wise, it is based on things that are more than just theory and conjecture.
-
LOL...
And I bet everyone who makes a post-capella ship or campaign would say the same. ;)
Heck, I belive my ships are the result of natural progression too ;7
-
Mmmh the flying Super-Beam-Cannon-of-Death(TM). Oh by the way could you please use [lvlshot]? Your url is messing up the site formating.
-
Heck, I belive my ships are the result of natural progression too ;7
Yeah, and corvettes with BFGreens are certainly balanced. :rolleyes:
Even the Golgotha only has 200,000 HP. I bet your cruisers have twice that.
-
LOL...
And I bet everyone who makes a post-capella ship or campaign would say the same. ;)
Heck, I belive my ships are the result of natural progression too ;7
Yes indeed, and many such claims can be debunked immediatly once the public lays eyes on them. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,51125.0.html)
-
Given that the Hecate class is superior to the Orion in terms of being a Destroyer (In FS terms), it'll eventually replace every Orion. The reason why the Hecate is armed lightly in anti-capital ship warfare is because bombers are definitely more effective to use against Destroyers. The Hecate is excellent for carrying task forces and can defend itself better than the Orion can against enemy bombers.
The Hecate is what???? You need to have your eyes checked or take a colser look at the Hecate . That thing has superior C&C abilaties and superior fighterbay capacity to the Orion as well as superior aaaf defences when compared to the Orion but that is about it.
Its AAAF Defences are adequate for a ship its size but they are not formidable. You want formidable take a look at the Aeulous or the Deimos. It's heavy beam cannons suck big time so much so that an Aeoulous would be a threat to it. Not to mention a Lilith cruiser or a corvette.
It can defend itself gains bommber much better then the Orion but it can not defend itself all that good it is still underarmed when it comes to itys aaaf defence screen.
What you dont believe me? Fine go check for yourself.
The logic behind retiring of the Orion is just not there. Since the Hecate as formidable a carrier and C&C ship is its pretty much useless agains anithing else . It can not offer direct support ot the front line units without getting trashed and then spend week in the repair yards.
It can not attack directly ANYTHING larger then a cruiser and hope of coming out on top with minimal damage.
So my guess is that the GTVA wanted the Hecate to be a jack of all trades with emphasis on carrier and C&C duties but kinda failed at it miserably. It would of been a much better ship had it had 180 or 200 spacecrafts in its fighterbay and had it had 2 fighterbays instead of one.
The Hecate is good but its not that good.
The Hattie is even better but its still not better then the Orion . Unless we hammer the Orion because of its very limited aaaf defences.
But then again thats what you have cruisers and corvettes for no?
Also had the Orion been that much expensive to retrofit with beam cannons and new tech then they would of just scrapped the program from the beginning and remained with just building Hecate's instead. My guess is that someone in the GTVA high Command still has some brains and oposed such a decision which would of been dezastruous for the GTVA.
-
Well, bombers are way more effective at tackling down capital ships from the Great War and from the more recent Shivan Incursions, I want my destroyers to be C&C ships and to always keep them away from combat. Bombers are much more expendable and if well coordinated, can deal massive amounts of damage while taking minimum losts. The Hecate design is brilliant as long as you can keep bombers away from you and launch fighters/bombers against threats. The only exception to this combat doctrine that is the Sathanas which vaporize destroyers in one or two volleys. I'll take a fleet of Hecates over a fleet of Orions any day. The GTVA are learning from their mistakes of using expensive Destroyers such as the Orion for frontline combat. What's 2 wings of bombers and 4 wings of fighters lost compared to losing a Destroyer with over a hundred fighters/bombers still onboard. Remember, Destroyers carry thousands of trained men and women.
Carrier type based Destroyers are the future of ship design. Direct combat Destroyers such as the Orion are nothing more than sinkholes that were drawn from retirement in order to bolster up the ranks. Retrofitting an Orion is faster and perhaps even cheaper than building a new Hecate. The GTVA desperately needed more destroyers and the shipyards were not capable of pumping out enough Hecates.
-
Well if anithing the Vasudans learned from the mistakes of the past not the terrans. They emphasized the C&C and carrier abilaties too weak on the Hecate for it to be 100% efective and prove to be a much more worthy replacement for the aging Orion's.
The Hattie for example has more HP more heavy beam cannons then the Hecate or the Orion a good aaaf defence screen and dual fighterbays with at least an equal amount of fighters to the Orion . Its more likely it can carry much more then the Orion equal to that of the Hecate.
That ships can project firepower and deliver firepower onto anything it comes across be it either destroyer or ani other ship aside from the Sathanas.
However since the Hattie is a much more succesfull jack of all trades then the Hecate we also see it as having a more offensive nature to it meaning it has more firepower concentrated in the forward firing ark then on the sides but it still does a better job the the Hecate at engaging cap ships via side beam cannons.
The Orion is good at what it does and that is to deliver massive amounts of damage onto enemy capships via bommbers or beam cannons.
A natural progression after capella would be somewhat new Orion and Orion MK II with increased aaaf defence capabilaties and 50.000 more HP since it is a vessel by its nature designed to go capshipvs. capship . That would be a natural progression of the Orion and the GTVA would do well to take such a course of action. I mean the Orions aaaf defences dont have to be as good as those of a Deimos they just need to be better then they are now. 2 maybe 3 flacks one or 2 aaf beams one or 2 misslie lauchers or some laser turrets armed with kaysers and the Orion would be very well protected agains bommbers when inclueded its own fighters.
I mean such a ship would be superb for beeing the main battlehorse of the GTVA hard to detroy heavy beam cannons adequate aaaf defences good fighterbay capacity. Its like a dream come true.
The Hecate has an asured future but not where you see it. I believe that any future destroyer classes following on the footsteps of the Hecate will wither be bigger and sport dual fighterbays 200 spacecrafts and better aaaf capabilaties but with the same heav beam as the Hecate.
I also believe the Vasudans will use the Hattie design to work of with since it is a very good design . Perhaps make it an even more offensive capable ship by mounting even heavier beam cannons . It will loose its all round beam cannons emplacements but at the same time it will gain in the ofensive role and perhaps enlarge its fighter bay capacity who knows perhaps one more figherbay to lauch fighters fast in order to swarm the enemy before he gets a chance to do the same to you.
-
The Hades sports very high end technology, like those of the Lucifer's, and most research that the GTI had done were lost in the rebellion. The Hecate and the Orion are excellent destroyers, but the Hecate, IMO, is more useful as a destroyer. I don't need a capital ship to take out another capital ship; I just need a carrier ship that can carry a large strike force and can defend itself fairly well against a counter attack of bombers.
I dunno about you, but I felt the Hecate was an excellent destroyer. It serves a critical function in the GTVA fleets and I could see it lasting for at least two more decades. I doubt the GTVA would design anymore new destroyers. I could see new version of the Hecate being developed, perhaps with an onboard AWAC system. (The Orion probably went through several upgrades during the T-V War as well.)
As time goes by, the mighty old Orions will be replaced by the newer Hecates that would continue the proud line of Terran destroyers. The GTVA would no doubt design a new class of cruisers to replace the decades old Leviathans. I envision that the GTVA would reopen their production for the Diamos class corvettes and replenish their fleet with more Hecates along with new cruisers.
-
Well that work very well against well if your enemy was the GTVA then by all means that would be a very sound strategy . But then agin the enmy is the shivans . And they have a nasty habbit of pin pointing you location sortie out a cruiser or corvette or destroyer or evena Sath blow you up and then leave.
I agree that the Hecate is a very usefull ship to the GTVA i believe the GTVA would be idiots not to have such a ship. However putting the Orion to past and having nothing to fill its shoes is an ever bigger mistake.
The GTVA can not hope to hold back the swarms of cruiser corvettes and destroyer with just bommbers and fighters. They take too long to kill .
However a destroyer such as the hecate perhaps a bit more powerfull who knows might be the solution they are looking for.
Somtheing that has more HP then the Hattie yet has a decent enough AAAF defence screen so as to survive moderate bommber counter-attacks and wield very powerfull beam cannons so as to rip any shivan destroyer to pieces in 3 salvos or less.
The Orion pretty much fill in all there requirements with one diffrence it can not defend itself even gainst a light bommber attack!
However the Orion will also have a very tough time securing a sistem and getting complete overall controll of the istem with just its 90-100 spacecrafts . For that it needs the support of a C&C Destroyer aka the Hecate.
also the Orion was not designed to be a strike destroyer with the emphasis on offensive capabilaties. It was designed to be able to engage on the battlefield enemy cap ships and win.
For the role of stryking back at the enemy counter attacking or storming an enemy strong point we have the Hattie.
Basicly all of these designs complement eachother so weoderfull it would be really stupid to say one of them need retirement or replacement with something totlay different.
Sure replacement maybe but with sometging of equal value and suited and tailored for the same task.
-
Heck, I belive my ships are the result of natural progression too ;7
Yeah, and corvettes with BFGreens are certainly balanced. :rolleyes:
Even the Golgotha only has 200,000 HP. I bet your cruisers have twice that.
Corvette with a BFGreen? Where?
Hold on....
*checks tables*
ICK! The Cobra has a BFGreen? The mother of all typos!
That's NOT it's intended weapon..
Nevermind, you'll see once FOW gets out. Alltough I have to state that my ships are differently balanced.
While destroyers generally have 200000 HP's, so does the player have more powerfull bombs (YAY for longer lasting capship battles!)
-
Yes indeed, and many such claims can be debunked immediatly once the public lays eyes on them. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,51125.0.html)
You're just jeloaus coause my ships roxorz da boxorz! Besides, it's not even finished yet.
You claim to know how the GTVA will design their ship in 30 years?
-
Bombers are good for long-range power projection, but if you want something killed FAST, Beam cannons pwn bombs all they way.
They deliver a massive ammount of damage/sec, they can't be intercepted and are instantanius.. no real travel time to speak of.
-
Yes indeed, and many such claims can be debunked immediatly once the public lays eyes on them. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,51125.0.html)
You're just jeloaus coause my ships roxorz da boxorz! Besides, it's not even finished yet.
You claim to know how the GTVA will design their ship in 30 years?
Of course. As does IceFire, Ace, and a few other people who were there at the right time.
-
ICK! The Cobra has a BFGreen? The mother of all typos!
That's NOT it's intended weapon..
Then he should use the BFGreen... I use it on the Cobra and no one complained :P
You seemed well aware of this, and even recommended to use it on stormfronter's ship. That was not a typo. That was a deliberate and inane choice on the part of its inane creator. :p
You're just jeloaus coause my ships roxorz da boxorz! Besides, it's not even finished yet.
You claim to know how the GTVA will design their ship in 30 years?
Your ships don't roxorz da boxorz. And he's not jealous. He's just ****ing evil.
IMO the Golgotha or maybe the Apothess, and not the monstrosity known as the GTVBS Archangel Mark II, is the logical continuation to the GTVA's legacy. But the GTVBS Archangel Mark II is kewl nonetheless.
Bombers are good for long-range power projection, but if you want something killed FAST, Beam cannons pwn bombs all they way.
They deliver a massive ammount of damage/sec, they can't be intercepted and are instantanius.. no real travel time to speak of.
w00t triple post! Now I know the secret to your 8k+ postage! :D
-
To be fair though, in order to really appreciate the Golgotha, you need to see her in mission, as she REALLY functions.
She's been pimped for some good eight to ten years now as the capship of doom, but I believe once you all play BWO (on judgment day), you will see how it functions in a logical reality, and it'll make more sense than it does currently.
-
You seemed well aware of this, and even recommended to use it on stormfronter's ship. That was not a typo. That was a deliberate and inane choice on the part of its inane creator. :p
Another typo. Like I said, wait till you play the campaign. Only those loadouts are FOW canon and accurate. I release ships as I finish making them and test if they work wihout bugs - I leave the balancing for later (anyone can edit tables in 5 minutes anyway)
IMO the Golgotha or maybe the Apothess, and not the monstrosity known as the GTVBS Archangel Mark II, is the logical continuation to the GTVA's legacy. But the GTVBS Archangel Mark II is kewl nonetheless.
Everything in that sentance is strictly a matter of oppinion. The legacy, the kewlness.
That's aid the Archy ISN'T the real logical legacy to the GTVA ship design (at least not look-wise)
w00t triple post! Now I know the secret to your 8k+ postage! :D
I wasn't even aware I was replying 3 times to the same topic! LOL! That's what happens when you got 10 windows opened and just click quote, type a reply and submit :lol:
-
To be fair though, in order to really appreciate the Golgotha, you need to see her in mission, as she REALLY functions.
She's been pimped for some good eight to ten years now as the capship of doom, but I believe once you all play BWO (on judgment day), you will see how it functions in a logical reality, and it'll make more sense than it does currently.
From what I have heard three Golgothas can take out a Sathanas in under forty second which must mean that it's single meson cannon is about as powerful as the complete frontal beam array of a Sathanas. Now that's an impressive ship.
-
WEll oki sure il buy that so....where do i get mi hands on BWO ??
-
First of all, let me state this: I am not saying that they should scrap all remaining Orions, but they should be replaced as soon as possible with newer designs, be it a Hecate or otherwise.
New-construction Orions. Which would also allow going back and incorporating newer technology at a more fundemental level for better performance.
I personally have difficulty believing the GTVA will persist with new construction of the Hecate, which was proved tactically bankrupt more than once by the Shivans, and unless the Terrans start building Hapshepsuts (which would be its own kind of mistake, IMO), then there's really only one ship to which you can turn, as designing a new destroyer class from the ground up probably takes at least five years, and the GTVA won't leave all its destroyer slipways idle that long.
-
Why do you think building Hatties is a mistake i mean The fisheadz destroyer is actualy very good and balaced with gooed firepower . Hell theyre a lot better then the Hecate and almost as good as the Orion so what seems to be the problem?
-
First of all, let me state this: I am not saying that they should scrap all remaining Orions, but they should be replaced as soon as possible with newer designs, be it a Hecate or otherwise.
New-construction Orions. Which would also allow going back and incorporating newer technology at a more fundemental level for better performance.
I personally have difficulty believing the GTVA will persist with new construction of the Hecate, which was proved tactically bankrupt more than once by the Shivans, and unless the Terrans start building Hapshepsuts (which would be its own kind of mistake, IMO), then there's really only one ship to which you can turn, as designing a new destroyer class from the ground up probably takes at least five years, and the GTVA won't leave all its destroyer slipways idle that long.
A Orion MK2 is fine, though I think the only thing it will share with its predecessor is probably only its general shape. I think it would be nice if it drop one of its slash beams and beef up its AAA capabilities.
I find the Hecate seemingly nerfed by :v: to give the Orion more screen time. As I recall in the actual FS2 campaign, the only time a Hecate appeared ingame is the Phoenicia as Sathanas fodder.
-
The Aquataine got its rear kicked by a Moloch, twice, but that was nebular so you may not have seen it very much.
-
To be fair, the Aquitaine got jumped in the nebula and was crippled by other forces. While the Orion would pulverize that Moloch and the cruiser in an instant, it would have a far harder time surviving all those bombers..a very hard time.
-
That is true, the Hecate is probably much better armed than what is represented ingame. Even the tech description describes the Hecate as being pretty well armed. Only problem is, FS3 will never come out so we won't be able to see what Volition had in mind for the Hecates.